Who ranks higher historically? Wlad or Mike Tyson

[HomicideHenry]

I tend to argue that fighters have four phases in their careers generally. Vladimir Klitschko had 69 fights and his first loss was his 24th outing (Puritty) and he would not have another loss until his 41st outing and then his 44th outing. He wouldn't lose again until his 68th and 69th outing.

The first loss can be seen as something of a rookie mistake considering prior to Puritty the only opponents of consequence he fought was arguably Jerry Wimpy Halstead and Bigfoot Martin. Vladimir Klitschko was well ahead on the cards before gassing out and getting stopped. No real shame in it retrospectively considering Puritty took Tommy Morrison to hell and back, had beaten Joe Hipp by stoppage, and took several men the distance. Was a simple case of a raw and green heavyweight arguably being matched up a bit too tough.

Where the legitimate criticism comes in is the losses to Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster. I think most people would say that Sanders was one of the more underrated heavyweights of the past 30 years, and it was simply bad matchmaking because Sanders was picked to be a stepping stone before Vladimir Klitschko was to fight Lennox Lewis. Still it was quite the upset but I think retrospectively looking back on it it's not the upset that we all thought it was at the time. Depending on Sanders mood, as he preferred golfing over boxing, he legitimately was one of the top 10 heavyweights in the world. Forget what the rankings were at the time we all know how rating systems are easily manipulated where far lesser challengers and get rated high while more dangerous men are sometimes pushed outside the top 10.

Brewster is one of those guys whose prime was cut short due to a detached retina, but was certainly the goods considering he knocked out Andrew Golota in a single round. The same Golota who went the distance with Byrd (arguably robbed too) for the IBF title and went the distance with Ruiz for the WBA title in the previous two fights prior to Brewster for the WBO title. So it is not really all that surprising retrospectively that Vladimir Klitschko who was suffering with confidence issues following the Sanders bout to lose to Brewster, although it might be pointed out that following the fight Vladimir's blood samples showed his blood sugar was twice the normal range and a physician in Las Vegas also suggested that he may have been poisoned by a drug called Haloperidol. Even if you don't believe the latter most people who watched the fight insist something was wrong with Vladimir Klitschko during the contest.

So one loss you can dismiss because of rookie mistakes and another loss you can dismiss because of health issues going into the match. What cannot be dismissed is the loss to Sanders and retrospectively it's not too terrible considering how underrated Sanders really was. And in the long history of boxing one can find multiple instances in which good or great fighters lost matches that were pretty embarrassing. Maybe one of the best examples I can think of is Max Schmeling losing by first round knockout to light heavyweight Gipsy Daniels in 1928 just two short years before he would win the heavyweight title from Jack Sharkey.

And one must remember retrospectively that the WBO heavyweight title was not seen with the kind of credibility it has today. It was viewed like the IBO or IBC belts today. The only thing it meant back then was that you were now a top 10 or top 15 heavyweight. Klitschko being WBO champion when he lost to Sanders was not the same thing as being a WBA, WBC or IBF champion.

If you don't believe me on this recall a year or two back when everybody was talking about the difference between unified and undisputed and people were arguing that Lennox Lewis was not the true champion because he did not have the WBO title, which absolutely appalled Lennox Lewis:

https://www.ringtv.com/531581-lennox-le ... ion-world/

So when looking back on it you could only say that Vladimir Klitschko lost by stoppage to two other men who were rated also in the top 10 or 15 just like he was. I don't think that is too out of the ordinary for contenders to lose to other contenders. After all this is the fight game somebody has to lose. And again as pointed out Sanders was one of the more underrated boxers of his time and Brewster's prime was cut short due to eye issues so we arguably never got to see his full potential.

Now on to stage 3 of Klitschko's career.... he not only avenges the loss to Lamon Brewster, but defeats Samuel Peter after getting off the canvas three times to demonstrate that he did have heart, and when his brother Vitali retired in quick order he unified the majority of the heavyweight titles. Only the WBC title eluded him, and that was largely because his brother made a return to the ring and won that belt and them being siblings they were not going to fight each other. Vitali retires again, and Vladimir continues being the consensus man to beat. Not only did he never appear to be in any danger throughout his championship reign I don't think there was a single person who won a single round against Vladimir Klitschko until he fought Tyson Fury.

The confidence issues and the technical issues were essentially gone and the dramatic improvement from who he was to what he ended up being cannot be ignored. Yes the bulk of his matches were incredibly boring to watch and he could have knocked out people rather easily but he continued his cautious approach that Emmanuel Stewart designed for him. Every now and then he would knock people out but it was clear he was not trigger happy like he was when he was younger.

Now if you were to ask me in a head-to-head matchup who would win between Riddick Bowe and Vladimir Klitschko I would lean towards Riddick Bowe, because not only did he have the size to deal with Vladimir Klitschko but he also had the punching power and toughness and good hand speed to have been a nightmare for Vladimir Klitschko. Another underrated aspect of Riddick Bowe was that for a big man he was a pretty good infighter, something that Vladimir Klitschko never was any good at.

But if you're going to make an argument on the basis of opponents and quality wins you simply cannot argue that Riddick Bowe had a far greater resume than Vladimir Klitschko because quite frankly the only names worth mentioning on Riddick Bowe's record were men who were well passed their prime. Without Holyfield on the resume one can make the strong argument that Vladimir Klitschko had the better overall record:

Hasim Rahman, Samuel Peter (2x), Axel Schulz, Chris Byrd (2x), Frans Botha, Ray Mercer, Lamon Brewster, David Haye, Jean Marc Mormeck, Sultan Ibragimov, and that consists of twelve wins against alphabet champions or former undisputed champions or hall of fame opposition (before you argue you know as well as I do David Haye will be in the Hall of Fame as he is arguably one of the top five cruiserweights in boxing history).

That is clearly superior to Riddick Bowe having beaten the ghost of Michael Dokes and the shell of Pinklon Thomas and barely edging out a decision win over the Cincinnati Fatty Tony Tubbs who Mike Tyson knocked out in two rounds just four years before. Like I said if you're going to make an argument for Riddick Bowe being better than Vladimir Klitschko you're going to have to do it on the basis of hypothetical head-to-head matchups instead of the resume.

[Cojimar 1946]

The most telling fights against Wlad are the Sanders one and the 1st Peter fight. To claim that Tyson or Frazier would not find that chin because of their smaller size is ridiculous. Especially considering what it took to put them down in the fights they lost. Every punch that connected from Sanders put Wlad down.

Jess Willard probably wouldn't be champ today, but would Charles Martin be in the 40's?, 60's? It's easy to pick weak champs from an era to try and prove a point. Yeah Buddy Baer might struggle with Fury, what happens when Stiverne faces Louis or Marciano?

Charles Martin was never even a top 19 heavyweight let alone a lineal champion. Nobody ever regarded him as top dog at any point in time. So not really a relevant example.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, but you get the gist of what he is saying, right?

Homicide, stop with ridiculously long posts. Nobody is going to carefully read all that.

[HomicideHenry]

OK, but you get the gist of what he is saying, right?

Homicide, stop with ridiculously long posts. Nobody is going to carefully read all that.

That is not my problem when I am breaking down every possible reason why I believe Riddick Bowe's resume is weaker than Vladimir Klitschko's. If you can spend hours reading the January 6th committee reports or even Trump's tax returns that will soon be released you can spend 5 minutes skimming through what I have read.

[gilgamesh]

This has turned into a really good thread

[SteveO]

HomicideHenry your post was excellent and sums up everything precisely.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to write it.

[HomicideHenry]

HomicideHenry your post was excellent and sums up everything precisely.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to write it.

Thanks.

If I remember correctly many years ago on this forum you solved the mystery of Jem Roche's professional boxing record because for decades he was listed as 0-1-0 just having the Tommy Burns fight noted. It puzzled people forever because how could the man be claimed as the champion of Ireland when nobody seemed to be on his record.

It's posters like yourself from back in the day who actually put in the time and the effort doing the research and making strong arguments that I appreciate on this boxing forum.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, but you get the gist of what he is saying, right?

Homicide, stop with ridiculously long posts. Nobody is going to carefully read all that.

That is not my problem when I am breaking down every possible reason why I believe Riddick Bowe's resume is weaker than Vladimir Klitschko's. If you can spend hours reading the January 6th committee reports or even Trump's tax returns that will soon be released you can spend 5 minutes skimming through what I have read.

I wouldn't spend hour reading the January 6 Reports or Trumps tax returns. However, those things have to be long. Your posts don't need to be.

Bowe beat a guy who was light years better than anyone Wladimir Klitschko beat. Don't think anyone is arguing that.
Klitschko lost three times to guys not in the top 10. Bowe didn't. He lost once to a great fighter in a great fight.

That's all we need to know. Bowe was better.

Vitaly's victim list is even weaker. Not even sure who could dig up. Certainly no one remotely close to a prime Holyfield.
Vitaly lost twice within the distance.
Again, this isn't rocket science. Bowe was clearly better.

If one guy has by far the bigger win, and has clearly less embarrassing losses, he was better. Pretty simple. No reason for you to go and on.

[HomicideHenry]

You are not going to get the argument of him having a better record or him having a better resume than Vladimir Klitschko. Having Holyfield on his record is the only thing that really stands out.

I already mentioned 12 wins over alphabet champions or undisputed champions or Hall of Famers, and call me crazy but all 12 of those wins put together equal or surpass a win over Evander Holyfield if anything it puts them on an even level or Klitschko has a better resume as a whole.

I think we really need to get into the politics of Riddick Bowe's career too. He threw away the real championship of the world literally in a garbage can on National Television than to face Lennox Lewis and instead claimed to be the real champion after picking up the WBO title which was basically worthless at that time.

He never fought Mike Tyson or Shannon Briggs or George Foreman or Larry Holmes or Razor Ruddock or Tommy Morrison or Oliver McCall or Frank Bruno, etc. He basically missed out on every major noteworthy opponent of his ERA with the exception of Evander Holyfield.

Again resume wise Riddick Bowe has a very very thin record although he was quite talented. I already conceded based on his size and capabilities he most likely would have defeated Vladimir Klitschko in a head-to-head matchup, but let's face it the man has a pretty weak resume that I don't think is better than Vladimir Klitschko's.

Anyways this has been beat to death and there's no point really discussing it further we just simply agree to disagree. I think it goes down without saying in the annals of boxing history that Riddick Bowe was one of the biggest wastes of talent in the heavyweight division. He literally pissed away everything while a guy like Vladimir Klitschko took negatives and turned them into positives.

Also you can only judge people by the era in which they competed and Vladimir Klitschko essentially cleaned out the entire heavyweight division there was simply nobody out there to really challenge him other than his brother and it's more than understandable why they never did compete against each other.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes beating Holyfield does stand out. He proved that he could be someone great. Neither Klitschko ever did that.
And he proved in the other two Holyfield fights that it wasn't a fluke.

Beating 12 WBS titleholders doesn't mean anything when compared to beating Holyfield. Who was the best one? Was he remotely close to a prime Holyfield? No.
Was the best fighter that Vitaly beat as good as Holyfield? Of course not.

(btw, Bowe had several wins over guys whop held the WBS title at one time or another. Beat several who were undefeated.)

Who are the Hall of Famers you are referring to that Wladimir and Vitaly beat?

The throwing away of the title belt was a stunt. He did sign to fight Lewis btw. It was Lewis who backed out.
Wladimir never cleaned out the division when Lennox Lewis was around. Wladimir never fought Lewis. It was the most talked about hw fight for more than two years.

Bowe had the biggest win by light years. The Klitschkos had worse losses by light years. Bowe was clearly better than Wladimir, and even more so over Vitaly.

[oogiebe]

Yes beating Holyfield does stand out. He proved that he could be someone great. Neither Klitschko ever did that.
And he proved in the other two Holyfield fights that it wasn't a fluke.

Beating 12 WBS titleholders doesn't mean anything when compared to beating Holyfield. Who was the best one? Was he remotely close to a prime Holyfield? No.
Was the best fighter that Vitaly beat as good as Holyfield? Of course not.

(btw, Bowe had several wins over guys whop held the WBS title at one time or another. Beat several who were undefeated.)

Who are the Hall of Famers you are referring to that Wladimir and Vitaly beat?

The throwing away of the title belt was a stunt. He did sign to fight Lewis btw. It was Lewis who backed out.
Wladimir never cleaned out the division when Lennox Lewis was around. Wladimir never fought Lewis. It was the most talked about hw fight for more than two years.

Bowe had the biggest win by light years. The Klitschkos had worse losses by light years. Bowe was clearly better than Wladimir, and even more so over Vitaly.

Bowe didn't lose the fights but he sure got a whuppin' from The Foul Pole twice.

[Contendeh]

For those who ranked Tyson above Wlad, i would be interested to know where they rank Joe Louis and Lennox Lewis.

For those who rank Tyson above Wlad, I would be interested in where Frazier, Dempsey and Sonny are ranked for them.

[Controversial]

Moorer beat Holyfield, after Holyfield beat Bowe, so should Moorer be ranked higher than the Klits too?

[oogiebe]

Moorer beat Holyfield, after Holyfield beat Bowe, so should Moorer be ranked higher than the Klits too?

Douglas' best win (vs Tyson) is better than Wlad's best win, so maybe he too should be ranked higher.

[GreenLightning]

Some interesting stuff on these threads, clearly a lot of knowledge from a lot of old heads that have watched more fights than there is time left in my life to watch but there are a few head scratchers

You can't just write Klitschko off because he lost three times in his prime while you can't name another ATG who did, but the possible and debated best of all time lost twice in his prime (Lewis)

Consequently I think it's eyebrow raising to say the least that someone as relentless, powerful and hit as hard as Joe Frazier couldn't do anything with Wladimir because he's big and clinches a lot. Tyson from what I have seen has more trouble being tied up than Frazier did??

There's an argument over the gigantic differences in sizes but the argument on Bowes inclusion hinges on him beating a blown up cruiserweight, the same blown up cruiserweight who knocked out Tyson

Interesting anyway

[GreenLightning]

For those who ranked Tyson above Wlad, i would be interested to know where they rank Joe Louis and Lennox Lewis.

For those who rank Tyson above Wlad, I would be interested in where Frazier, Dempsey and Sonny are ranked for them.

See for me it's hard because I've seen pretty much all of Tyson's fights, a lot of Wladimirs, a couple of Frazier's and Listons, and have never sat and watched a full fight of Dempsey's other than the Carnera mugging

It's a lot of footage to watch lads even for the most ardent boxing fans

[Cojimar 1946]

I'm not sure focusing on his losses is a good argument against Wladimir being better than Tyson. Somehow or another he was able to turn things around and make 19 title defenses whilst trying to take on the best. We don't get to erase what he subsequently accomplished because of earlier losses.

Moreover his losses don't indicate his ceiling as a fighter because he was able to beat guys that certainly seem better than the guys who beat him. Pulev for example clearly seems to be a better fighter than Brewster or Purrity despite losing to Klitschko same for Chagaev

[tiny_acres]

I am impressed that Wlad took a weak chin and adjusted his style to compensate for it.
Yes he had 3 embarrassing losses. He also learned from them and came back to be one of the longest reigning champions in history.
He maximized his faults and became an atg. Quite impressive

[oogiebe]

Some interesting stuff on these threads, clearly a lot of knowledge from a lot of old heads that have watched more fights than there is time left in my life to watch but there are a few head scratchers

You can't just write Klitschko off because he lost three times in his prime while you can't name another ATG who did, but the possible and debated best of all time lost twice in his prime (Lewis)

Consequently I think it's eyebrow raising to say the least that someone as relentless, powerful and hit as hard as Joe Frazier couldn't do anything with Wladimir because he's big and clinches a lot. Tyson from what I have seen has more trouble being tied up than Frazier did??

There's an argument over the gigantic differences in sizes but the argument on Bowes inclusion hinges on him beating a blown up cruiserweight, the same blown up cruiserweight who knocked out Tyson

Interesting anyway

Classic post mate!

[GreenLightning]

I said Dempsey beating Carnera but I meant Willard of course

[Controversial]

Moorer beat Holyfield, after Holyfield beat Bowe, so should Moorer be ranked higher than the Klits too?

Douglas' best win (vs Tyson) is better than Wlad's best win, so maybe he too should be ranked higher.

Or Jimmy Young. He beat Foreman and Lyle and lost to Ali in a fight the Associated Press had Young the winner. He also lost to Norton by SD that others thought he may have won. Sometimes fighters just have good wins

[Ezzard]

I am impressed that Wlad took a weak chin and adjusted his style to compensate for it.
Yes he had 3 embarrassing losses. He also learned from them and came back to be one of the longest reigning champions in history.
He maximized his faults and became an atg. Quite impressive

Extremely impressive. A great prospect who was exposed. But who then dismantled his style and built himself back up. Amazing fortitude and intelligence to be able to do that. So few boxers can change their styles mid-career.

[Seamus]

Looking back at Wlad's first 3 losses is like looking at a team in just about any sport who dropped 3 matches early in the season. Then after making major adjustments and going on a big win streak, you look back and ask "how did they ever lose those 3 matches". Happens every year in virtually every team sport their is, and yes, sometimes it even happens in boxing.

[Ezzard]

Looking back at Wlad's first 3 losses is like looking at a team in just about any sport who dropped 3 matches early in the season. Then after making major adjustments and going on a big win streak, you look back and ask "how did they ever lose those 3 matches". Happens every year in virtually every team sport their is, and yes, sometimes it even happens in boxing.

Unfortunately, people can't see beyond the losses with any kind of objectivity. We all know the undefeated record is not really that big a deal and yet it hovers over the sport and these boards like a black cloud.

[DrDuke]

Looking back at Wlad's first 3 losses is like looking at a team in just about any sport who dropped 3 matches early in the season. Then after making major adjustments and going on a big win streak, you look back and ask "how did they ever lose those 3 matches". Happens every year in virtually every team sport their is, and yes, sometimes it even happens in boxing.

Unfortunately, people can't see beyond the losses with any kind of objectivity. We all know the undefeated record is not really that big a deal and yet it hovers over the sport and these boards like a black cloud.

Well, actually, the majority sees it fair enough, except of a couple of local clowns, who are always willing to entertain us every f8ckin' day.